“ALMOOST FULFILD”: GAME AND FRAME IN THE CANTERBURY TALES by ANGELA S. WEDDINGTON (Under the Direction of William Provost) ABSTRACT Readers have always questioned the purpose of the frame in Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales. Why does Chaucer choose a pilgrimage as the setting of his tale- telling game, and furthermore, what, if anything, is considered the conclusion of the frame? This paper outlines this problem and concludes that the frame is much more than an excuse for the game. Acknowledging the importance of the frame is the key to understanding the narrative that is The Canterbury Tales. INDEX WORDS: The Canterbury Tales, The Parson’s Tale, General Prologue, Harry Bailly, Pilgrimage, Penance, The Pardoner,Wycliffe, Lollardy, Glossing “ALMOOST FULFILD”: GAME AND FRAME IN THE CANTERBURY TALES by ANGELA S. WEDDINGTON B.A., Wesleyan College, 2001 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS ATHENS, GEORGIA 2003 © 2003 Angela S. Weddington All Rights Reserved “ALMOOST FULFILD”: GAME AND FRAME IN THE CANTERBURY TALES by ANGELA S. WEDDINGTON Major Professor: William Provost Committee: David Gants Jonathan Evans Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia August 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page WORKS CITED............................................................................................................45 iv When most people read Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales for the first time, they are first presented with an explanation of a frame story. Maybe they discuss some other frame stories such as Arabian Nights or the Decameron and compare them to The Canterbury Tales. After this brief discussion, I would suspect that most readers of Chaucer never think about the frame again. After the description of the pilgrims in the General Prologue, most readers dive immediately and in a sense, irrevocably, into the tales. In my own reading of Chaucer, however, I have come to see the importance of the frame – especially if we consider the frame to be everything immediately outside of Harry Bailly’s tale-telling game. This would include both “sides” of the frame – the General Prologue and the Parson’s Tale – and the brief but important scattering of frame in between the tales. I have also come to see that while certain, important questions are raised within the context of the tales, those questions are, for the most part, answered in the frame. In this study, I reconsider the frame as something created out of great deliberateness and intention. Here we find the key to understanding the whole of The Canterbury Tales. The purpose of pilgrimage and penance in medieval literature has always been a source of great debate. Recently, an excellent study has been done comparing different ideas of pilgrimage throughout history.1 This study distinguishes between “place” pilgrimage – the act of going somewhere to offer prayers – and “spiritual” pilgrimage – the idea that all people are on a pilgrimage journeying from this world to the next. There has always been a connection between “place” pilgrimage and penance, for pilgrimage was understood as a penitential act – it was the spiritual reason for going in the first 1 Dee Dyas’s book Pilgrimage in Medieval English Literature, 700-1500, analyzes the development of the idea of pilgrimage and the constant controversies surrounding it. 1 place. In Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, the ideas of pilgrimage and penance constitute the frame of the work.2 In The Canterbury Tales, both ideas of pilgrimage are at work: “place” pilgrimage and the idea that humans are pilgrims on a journey to heaven are discussed explicitly. Chaucer’s characters are “place” pilgrims, yet they are reminded, at least at the beginning and again at the end of the work, of their role as pilgrims journeying through this life to the next. They are also reminded at these crucial times in the narrative of their need for penance. Built into The Canterbury Tales is also the idea of game. The characters of Chaucer’s work will go on a pilgrimage, but they will divert themselves with a tale-telling game. Thus, the status of the journey to Canterbury forever seems to teeter between the frame of pilgrimage and penance and the game – the individual tales themselves. The tensions between the material, physical pilgrimage, the spiritual, metaphorical pilgrimage, and the penitential implications of both are heightened. In Chaucer’s work, we are left wondering whether the author himself favors the spiritual over the material and whether penance as described by one pilgrim and practiced by his author3 is necessary for community and, ultimately, salvation. Pilgrimage, as Chaucer understood it, was a religious practice that developed over several hundred years. This development was not a culmination of a growing understanding of the practice; indeed, the practice of pilgrimage as we see it in the Middle Ages was controversial and was constantly challenged by both the orthodox and heterodox (Dyas 3). According to some medieval sources, pilgrimage to holy places was seen as harmful to the soul. Like most social institutions surrounded by controversy, 2 Traugott Lawler has established the Parson’s Tale as the “general epilogue” of the Canterbury Tales (156). 2 medieval pilgrimage and its various interpretations captured the attention of many medieval writers (Dyas 3). Christians always believed in some sort of pilgrimage, even if it was not a physical journey to some holy place. Even in the New Testament, writers such as Paul and the author of the letter to the Hebrews tell their readers that they are not of the world in which they are living (Dyas 21-22). Thus, Christians viewed themselves as citizens of heaven and therefore as pilgrims on earth.4 For early Christians, there were practical reasons to support such belief. As they were persecuted, they fled the center of their faith – Jerusalem. Instead of considering themselves citizens of the earthly Jerusalem, they considered themselves citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem working and suffering towards full citizenship in heaven: The image of the city and citizenship . had a particular resonance within the context of the Roman Empire, combining as it did elements of status and responsibility. The New Testament taught that Christians enjoyed the privilege of adoption into the household of God and into citizenship within his kingdom (Ephesians 2:19). This new status, however, had radical implications. Like those Roman citizens who lived in colonies scattered across the Empire, Christians had to combine life amongst people of other creeds and lifestyles with a constant awareness of their true homeland and allegiance (Philippians 3:10). Out of the twin concepts of the sojourner- pilgrim and the citizen of a distant, greater homeland, therefore, the New Testament writers fashioned an image which combined the promise of future security with a challenge to present behavior. Faith in God’s promises of blessings to come would inspire willingness to make sacrifices in the present. Pilgrims en route to heaven would be enabled to remain impervious to sufferings or abuse. Like the heroes of faith listed by the writer of the letter to the Hebrews, they would be content to be aliens on earth if thereby they might win citizenship in heaven. (Dyas 24) Early Christians viewed pilgrimage as a vertical journey rather than a horizontal one. 3 To me, Chaucer’s Retraction seems both literal and sincere. 4 The idea of citizenship in heaven while living on the earth is an idea present in both The Canterbury Tales and Pearl. This form of pilgrimage, although not as explicit as in the New Testament, is still present in late medieval literature. 3 Pilgrimage was not a physical journey from one place on earth to another; instead, it was seen as a spiritual journey from this life to the next. Christians were called to live this life as if they were citizens of heaven and believed they would be held accountable for their response to this call. This view continued to grip Christians through the early centuries of Christianity up to the Middle Ages as is evidenced in the patristic writings through poems such as Pearl, Piers Plowman, and The Canterbury Tales (Dyas 25). While the idea of life pilgrimage was always accepted and taught, place pilgrimage has endured periods of acceptance and criticism. This has to do, in part, with the shifting role of holy places themselves. Dyas notes two major changes in the significance of holy places in the course of Christianity. The first of these came with the conversion of Constantine and the re-conquering of the Holy Land. The second of these came at the eve of the Reformation, about the time Chaucer and the Pearl-poet were writing (37). The first change saw a move towards the practice of place pilgrimage. The second change saw a rejection of place pilgrimage as a corrupt practice that thwarted spirituality (37). Dyas’s notice of the controversy stems from what she terms the “oscillation between an emphasis on the omnipresence of God and the belief that visiting special places would result in special blessings” (37). She believes that “[f]or three centuries the Church focused predominantly upon God’s presence with his people wherever they might be, looking for comfort and inspiration to a heavenly rather than an earthly Jerusalem” (38). In fact, some early Christian writers such as Origen spoke out against Jerusalem as the city that had lost the favor of God (Dyas 38). To the early Christians who were persecuted throughout the Roman Empire and especially in Jerusalem, God could not be limited to that place. 4 The development of the covenant in the Old Testament demonstrates a shift from a God who was present wherever his people were to a God who was limited to one place.